Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Anamorphic Lens Tests - Kowa, Arri Master Anamorphic & Lomo

Nick Gardner said:
Aren't Hawk Cs lomo round front optics rehoused? I know the first generation was that, and I thought hawk Cs were 1st gen? I can't remember. Regardless, great looking stuff.

I absolutely love the second spot even though I have no idea what it's for ;-) Really any mid 70's and newer anamorphics can be shot well and look great. They are like ice cream or boobs, lots of variation but all good.

Nick
Click to expand...

Rehoused, indeed.
 
Andrew Ceperley said:
Hawk - all the way. If we're talking non-Panavision, the older Hawk lenses (C-Series and V-Series) are just too good to overlook. They're sharp but preserve so many wonderful anamorphic artifacts (unlike those horrendously boring Zeiss Master Anamorphics - I mean, way to make such a wonderful and optically exciting format dull and lifeless).

What about Todd AO, JDC and Cineovision - great older options (though JDC can pretty much only be found through Panavision now...unless you look long and hard)? If I were to look into older anamorphics I'd look at those options before Lomo or Kowa without question. Kowa's widest is a 40mm, which on any camera outside an Alexa 4:3, is totally unacceptable...and even then it's still not quite as wide as I'd like. Lomo's wider range of focal lengths (22-500 apparently, though I've only used 35-200) is limited by poor optical quality - not to mention a total inconsistency of optics AND mechanics. Every set I see is radically different from the last.
Click to expand...

Agree. BTW - in my personal opinion new Arri looks to clinical too, but this is middle way to keep anamorph character and clean frame to postpro - with any blockbuster prod. easier to coordinate without - it is simple list.

LOMOs inconsistency - yes, depends of many things. Optical quality - disagree, well serviced or keeped LOMOs have pretty same characteristic like Hawks.

Todd AO - very good, limited quanitity, well designed.
 
Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
Aren't Hawk Cs lomo round front optics rehoused? I know the first generation was that, and I thought hawk Cs were 1st gen? I can't remember. Regardless, great looking stuff.

I absolutely love the second spot even though I have no idea what it's for ;-) Really any mid 70's and newer anamorphics can be shot well and look great. They are like ice cream or boobs, lots of variation but all good.

Nick

Gabriel Przybysz 2 said:
Rehoused, indeed.
Click to expand...

The Hawk's are built from lomos but they are more than rehoused. As I got it explained Vantage, that makes them, changed some lens elements and the order of them so basically the anamorphic element is closer to the sensor. which is partly the reason behind the less flaring and and better sharpness. They say that the hawk C's are perfectly matched to the V light but to me they are very different as the C's got so much more glass in them in the wider range so the 35mm C lens to me at least got so much more character than the 35mm V light. Andthat goes gor the 50mm and the 75mm as well for the longer focal lengths it's quite difficult to tell the difference.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
Aren't Hawk Cs lomo round front optics rehoused? I know the first generation was that, and I thought hawk Cs were 1st gen? I can't remember. Regardless, great looking stuff.

I absolutely love the second spot even though I have no idea what it's for ;-) Really any mid 70's and newer anamorphics can be shot well and look great. They are like ice cream or boobs, lots of variation but all good.

Nick



The Hawk's are built from lomos but they are more than rehoused. As I got it explained Vantage, that makes them, changed some lens elements and the order of them so basically the anamorphic element is closer to the sensor. which is partly the reason behind the less flaring and and better sharpness. They say that the hawk C's are perfectly matched to the V light but to me they are very different as the C's got so much more glass in them in the wider range so the 35mm C lens to me at least got so much more character than the 35mm V light. Andthat goes gor the 50mm and the 75mm as well for the longer focal lengths it's quite difficult to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Of course, but still same glasses - what is pro argument. V lite series with 2x factor - agree. Some small cosmetic changes, focus ring, probably more lightweight, don't remember big difference with weight. But character, As Bjorn wroted - in many opinion C series is superior to later.
 
Lomo's wider range of focal lengths (22-500 apparently, though I've only used 35-200) is limited by poor optical quality - not to mention a total inconsistency of optics AND mechanics. Every set I see is radically different from the last.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the early hawks were lomo glass, so I wouldn't write off lomos just because you have seen a few bad ones. I have seen superspeeds so banged up that none of the focus marks are right, they have bad image shift and they look like monkeys fought over them. I don't condemn all superspeeds because of that. I recently did the best work of my career on lomo square fronts, and it looks great. These are not lenses you use for their lack of flaws ;-) Mechanically, mine are from the late 70's and 80's and have been serviced, and I put larger diameter gears on them. They are also not banged up. Optically, I really think they are the closest match for 70's-80s panavision anamorphic primes as far as character goes. That said I really think the subtle differences in anamorphics from brand to brand, and lens to lens (lets remember that if you were doing a big feature you would look at several examples of each lens and pick the best looking/best matching ones ), are matters of taste and style. Much like a fine wine, or a good cheese steak, it's the subtle differences that one prefers over another.

Nick

Nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
Like I said, the early hawks were lomo glass, so I wouldn't write off lomos just because you have seen a few bad ones. I have seen superspeeds so banged up that none of the focus marks are right, they have bad image shift and they look like monkeys fought over them. I don't condemn all superspeeds because of that. I recently did the best work of my career on lomo square fronts, and it looks great. These are not lenses you use for their lack of flaws ;-) Mechanically, mine are from the late 70's and 80's and have been serviced, and I put larger diameter gears on them. They are also not banged up. Optically, I really think they are the closest match for 70's-80s panavision anamorphic primes as far as character goes. That said I really think the subtle differences in anamorphics from brand to brand, and lens to lens (lets remember that if you were doing a big feature you would look at several examples of each lens and pick the best looking/best matching ones ), are matters of taste and style. Much like a fine wine, or a good cheese steak, it's the subtle differences that one prefers over another.

Nick

Nick
Click to expand...


Exactly. LOMOs was designed as alternative for widescreen cinema lenses by Panavision behind iron courtain. Destroyed or not proper collimated will work poor, obviously.
 
I didn't test it myself, but iv heard that there are similarities of sharpness between zeiss Master Anamorphic and G series Panavision anamorphic.
I did test out C, E , Primo Anamorphics, they all have the vintage look to it, and in that order the sharpness goes higher. I still love C series over any anamorphics out there.
 
Hey guys, I have a question regarding Lomo anamorphics vignetting; I shot something full frame 35mm film last year and the shorter focal lengths (under 50mm) seemed to vignette a tad past where the sound channel would be on the left side... any thoughts? Could this be a collimation issue?

EDIT:
Or a problem with the mount and flange distance?
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
Scorpios test

anyone knows how much these costs?
Click to expand...

No idea, but they'll be cheaper then anamorphics that have front Ana elements (the Scorpios are rear ana elements - so the 2x stretch is far less pronounced/almost imperceptible).

Personally, I don't see the point of ana without the ovular bokeh and particular effects of a front ana (ie the mixed horizontal and vertical feel) - these Scorpios look like other rear anas - basically a spherical lens with a rear squeeze.

On the flipside, rear anas normally loose quite a few stops, so they've done a good job in keeping these pretty fast.
 
Hello Andy

Exactly, rear have spherical structure of picture, especially visible with longer focals and all face shots - it make difference with front and front-middle anamorph.
Rest is matter of taste. Anamorph called as "vintage" have small imperfections and absolutely visible character - easier to make impressed pictures. LOMOs are quite good alternative for Panavision or HAWKs - personally think that only this + KOWAs anamaorph - and long nothing in anamorph world of features. It is small provocation here - I forgot or miss modern, new... but if anybody have fresh practice with them - know reason...
 
Andy White said:
No idea, but they'll be cheaper then anamorphics that have front Ana elements (the Scorpios are rear ana elements - so the 2x stretch is far less pronounced/almost imperceptible).

Personally, I don't see the point of ana without the ovular bokeh and particular effects of a front ana (ie the mixed horizontal and vertical feel) - these Scorpios look like other rear anas - basically a spherical lens with a rear squeeze.

On the flipside, rear anas normally loose quite a few stops, so they've done a good job in keeping these pretty fast.
Click to expand...

The Scorpios are NOT rear anamorphic... Rear anamorphic lenses would also create ovular bokeh as well... What Service Vision has done is incorporate a compound aspheric design that spreads the "squeezing" process incrementally over MANY elements through the optical path. So there is no ONE element or group of elements doing the 2x squeeze. This does have the effect of creating spherical out of focus bokeh though... It DOES feel different than traditional anamophic process but I look at it as yet another option out there... we certainly have many anamorphics that have vintage character and that breath, bend ect... These lenses exhibit virtually NO breathing and are very square even on the 35mm shown.

These are best really only compared to Master Anamorphics. Time will tell if cinematographers warm to these modern artifact-free anamorphic offerings over their nostalgic feelings for vintage anamorphic glass out there.
 
Hello
I do not shot with Scorpios, they are new on market - so hard to tell anything. I dont know why you compare this lenses to Master Anamorphic? Did you already made some testes, charts or field compare testes? - quite interesting to see.
No breathing, distortion etc - quite useful, important - indeed. But more interesting is character of lens, matching etc.
VINTAGE CHARACTER - :) - I am so sorry - working many years with so many sets - and divide lenses to few dichotomic/polarized groups - big topic without border. vintage somethimes means only artifacts, uncoated low contrast etc, sometimes means absolutely unique look and top quality of construction and glass without ANY comparable with modern constructions...
Here - from first impressions - excluding aspect - not see anamorphic feel (this is not matter of flares or artifacts! - so easy to ad in post, this is matter of structure of picture)- here is closer to spherical, especially with out-of-focus area, matter of taste Lens developing and production is quite hard area, dozen years by few well know optical companies...
Regards
 
Last edited:
Christopher Probst said:
The Scorpios are NOT rear anamorphic... Rear anamorphic lenses would also create ovular bokeh as well... What Service Vision has done is incorporate a compound aspheric design that spreads the "squeezing" process incrementally over MANY elements through the optical path. So there is no ONE element or group of elements doing the 2x squeeze. This does have the effect of creating spherical out of focus bokeh though... It DOES feel different than traditional anamophic process but I look at it as yet another option out there... we certainly have many anamorphics that have vintage character and that breath, bend ect... These lenses exhibit virtually NO breathing and are very square even on the 35mm shown.

These are best really only compared to Master Anamorphics. Time will tell if cinematographers warm to these modern artifact-free anamorphic offerings over their nostalgic feelings for vintage anamorphic glass out there.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the Scorpios themselves - you've obviously used them and/or have experience of them :)

However, on a general point, I'd have to disagree on rear anamorphics being able to create ovular bokeh. Being the last element in the assembly (especially in zooms - where you'll find most rear adapters on older/vintage lenses) means it's just not possible to get ovular bokeh... at best there's a few degrees lost, but round is still round in the bokeh.

Maybe that's different in Primes (I've never used a rear adapted prime), but my experience of rear anamorphic zooms has never produced ovular bokeh.

In terms of the Scorpios, I wish them luck and hope they catch on... but, as you say, time will tell.
 
Hi Andy!
As wroted here - same - from my practice only some macro shots with rear ana give "quasi" version of ovular bokeh especially with return light, for example from silver, shine background.
rest is matter of taste. I do not see here visible "anamorphic impact" - but - matter of taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top